The parenthesis are a strength that allows for faster editing and easier parsing. Although I respect every en-devour to have fun with code, I hope people don't run with this as a serious option. It would be better to have editor extensions that emulate this with regular Clojure code; that! I could get behind.
You might also like the org-babel features of creating executable code-blocks. You can even mix languages by using the output of one block as the input to another. Welcome to the future of 2012 ;)
I made one such document a while back with mostly Clojure, if you want to have a look: https://github.com/dnv-opensource/reagent-flow/
Not really. Apple has recently implemented comprehensive encryption measures. They themselves cannot access your data, so there is nothing for them to disclose. It's hard to understand why anyone would choose anything other than Apple these days tbh.
You probably don't need to compel them. PRISM have shown it's easy to setup a program where they are forced to just share everything through a back door to the gov and not tell anyone.
They are willing to give you the only key, provided you release them from obligation to help you get your own information back if you lose your key.
For most people's threat model, this is not necessary, as even in the case of the San Bernardino terrorist iPhone, Apple doesn't tend to defeat their own security measures on demand. But following that situation and others, Apple added additional measures making it even more difficult for themselves.
See this support article:
"Advanced Data Protection for iCloud is an optional setting that offers our highest level of cloud data security. If you choose to enable Advanced Data Protection, your trusted devices will retain sole access to the encryption keys for the majority of your iCloud data, thereby protecting it using end-to-end encryption. Additional data protected includes iCloud Backup, Photos, Notes and more."
Are you sure? Do you have the skills and equipment necessary to verify that apple's software and hardware work as they claim. A safer bet would be to assume that apple's government spy device is just as good at spying as google's government spy device.
I mean or you could just look at cases where the encryption has been tested in court by law enforcement. Unless they're sending your phone to Israel at great expense they're not getting in if you have anything but the simplest passwords.
It's not like phone and iCloud data hasn't been subpoenaed before.
The government will read it only when it really wants to. The hospital shooter and the trump shooter were not worthwhile revealing that they can access all the data.
You misunderstand me. They are reading it. They won't tell people they they're reading it without a good reason. They want people to keep sending data.
If the US government wants your data badly enough they can compel apple to push and update to work around all of these measures. As long as you don't own your device no amount of encryption matters.
> It's hard to understand why anyone would choose anything other than Apple these days tbh.
You could just not put your data into the hands of one of these companies.
I think they're arguing that encryption done by someone else on your behalf is not actually in your control. And if the people who do control it are beholden to the government requests, then they are not a safe option either.
I'm not deeply familiar with Apple's encryption systems, but from the other commenters here, it appears that Apple holds the keys and also controls the source code and distribution to the device. It sounds like it might be trivial for them to invalidate their own security.
They're also apparently incapable of breaking it in that specific way on newer phones. (force update that allows unlimited PIN unlock attempts, only possible on the 5c and below)
I don’t know if maybe you missed what I said but the point I was making was that you can’t actually get the full picture of the situation from Apple’s information alone so I don’t know how sending me a link to a PDF that their marketing made is going to help no matter how many pages it is.
Here is a document with other third party certifications of the validity of the original document.
The full picture is quite complicated but a curious person has access to more than enough data to either make an informed decision or decide to trust no one.
I began developing some web components without delving deeply into the mechanics of Lit and Polymer, aiming to identify gaps in the standard web components API. Early on, I created several decorators and, in hindsight, they closely resemble what Lit provides. Therefore, I might concede that Lit could become a standard. However, since I haven't used it personally, I can't fully endorse it yet.
I think there’s a bit of a misconception for people coming from other frameworks when it comes to Lit and it’s relation to vanilla web components.
It’s not like it’s “compatible” but a different thing, Lit is actually a standard web component the same way as a vanilla one might be.
The only difference is that you extend a different base class instead of HTMLElement, but Lit also extends HTMLElement, they just give you a massive quality of life upgrade when it comes to boilerplate and other developer experience factors and it only costs you like 5kb.
To the point that I think it’s generally a bad idea to extend HTMLElement directly. It’s very very rarely a good trade off though exceptions obviously exist.
It's unfortunate that org-mode is not more wide-spread (linked to Emacs). Org-mode covers this and a million other use-cases.
Don't get me wrong though, this looks really good. So, congrats to OP :)
Your assessment is correct. But it really comes down to what type of shell that's running. For an interactive shell (one you open yourself in a terminal), the run-com file (.zshrc) will be loaded, so anywhere you put it, things will seemingly work. But if you start doing some task scheduling etc, that would fail if you have set your PATH in a run-com.
